Re: Mozilla can't be GPL? (was: pkcs#11 license)
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 04:41:27PM +, MJ Ray wrote: It is interesting. Could one read the API reference documentation and recreate the header files from the ideas? Except for any magic constants (which can be extracted from the documentation), I can recreate a C header from the code that uses it. This really isn't difficult. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Mozilla can't be GPL? (was: pkcs#11 license)
Ludovic Rousseau wrote: It seams the only human possible solution is to ask RSA to change their licence. I guess the Mozilla foundation could help if they care about licencing issues. Any idea of how we should contact Mozilla and RSA? I am really _not_ a diplomatic guy :-) I'd expect Mozilla are interested in getting this file BSDed as part of their tri-licensing project, so it might make sense to simply draw Mozilla's attention to this problem and leave approaching RSA to them. I expect Mozilla are already aware of the licensing issues, so any contact need only bring this file to their attention. The first point of contact should probably be the people in charge of Mozilla's relicensing: The bugzilla entry for the relicensing is 236613 [1], in which you can find contact details for Gervase Markham, who is leading the relicensing effort. [1] - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=236613 -- Lewis Jardine IANAL, IANADD -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mozilla can't be GPL? (was: pkcs#11 license)
Lewis Jardine wrote: Ludovic Rousseau wrote: It seams the only human possible solution is to ask RSA to change their licence. I guess the Mozilla foundation could help if they care about licencing issues. Any idea of how we should contact Mozilla and RSA? I am really _not_ a diplomatic guy :-) I'd expect Mozilla are interested in getting this file BSDed as part of their tri-licensing project, so it might make sense to simply draw Mozilla's attention to this problem and leave approaching RSA to them. There seems to be some confusion about Mozilla's current and future licensing status in this thread. The topic implies Mozilla is under the GPL; this isn't true until the relicensing project is finished. We hope to have that done soon, but it's not done yet. The above comment suggests that we are relicensing to a BSD-like licence; that also isn't true, the target relicensing scheme is an MPL/LGPL/GPL tri-licence. Ludo has drawn my attention to the problem; as I originally read the licence, this document referred to the header file, which no-one ever talks about, and so the restriction was in practice meaningless. If that turns out not to be true, we may have more of a problem. The file was originally contributed, with an NPL/GPL dual licence, by Netscape Communications Corp. I would like to think that they would have got clearance to issue the file under that licence before contributing it... Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mozilla can't be GPL? (was: pkcs#11 license)
Hello, I continue my work on the problematic RSA licence I started in [1]. Andreas Jellinghaus, OpenSC author, also asked similar questions: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Jellinghaus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does it cause incompatibilities with GPL'ed applications? Yes, I think it's like the BSD ad clause and would be better as a request than a requirement. After a bit of research we (Andreas, me and some others) found that all the applications using the PKCS#11 API also use tha RSA header files. These header files are the API reference so it is normal to use them. One major application using the RSA header files is Mozilla. For example the file (from the Debian package) mozilla-1.7.11/upstream/tarballs/mozilla/security/nss/lib/softoken/pkcs11.h contains a verbatim copy of a RSA header file and includes as licence: /* * The contents of this file are subject to the Mozilla Public * License Version 1.1 (the License); you may not use this file * except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of * the License at http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/ * * Software distributed under the License is distributed on an AS * IS basis, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or * implied. See the License for the specific language governing * rights and limitations under the License. * * The Original Code is the Netscape security libraries. * * The Initial Developer of the Original Code is Netscape * Communications Corporation. Portions created by Netscape are * Copyright (C) 1994-2000 Netscape Communications Corporation. All * Rights Reserved. * * Contributor(s): RSA Labs * * Alternatively, the contents of this file may be used under the * terms of the GNU General Public License Version 2 or later (the * GPL), in which case the provisions of the GPL are applicable * instead of those above. If you wish to allow use of your * version of this file only under the terms of the GPL and not to * allow others to use your version of this file under the MPL, * indicate your decision by deleting the provisions above and * replace them with the notice and other provisions required by * the GPL. If you do not delete the provisions above, a recipient * may use your version of this file under either the MPL or the * GPL. */ /* * Copyright (C) 1994-1999 RSA Security Inc. Licence to copy this document * is granted provided that it is identified as RSA Security In.c Public-Key * Cryptography Standards (PKCS) in all material mentioning or referencing * this document. * * The latest version of this header can be found at: *http://www.rsalabs.com/pkcs/pkcs-11/index.html */ - Does the RSA publicity clause conflict with the GPL used by Mozilla? - Is Mozilla using an illegal licence? - Should Debian stop distributing Mozilla? I guess Mozilla lawyers already thought about the problem. Anybody knows if they consider the RSA publicity clause in conflict with GPL? I can't find information about this problem in the Mozilla crypto FAQ [2]. Thanks, [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00537.html [2] http://www.mozilla.org/crypto-faq.html#1-3 -- Ludovic Rousseau -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mozilla can't be GPL? (was: pkcs#11 license)
Ludovic Rousseau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After a bit of research we (Andreas, me and some others) found that all the applications using the PKCS#11 API also use tha RSA header files. These header files are the API reference so it is normal to use them. I thought the API reference was the PDF from http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/pkcs/pkcs-11/ which has a slightly different licence and wouldn't be copied wholesale anyway, just the few names for interfacing. It is interesting. Could one read the API reference documentation and recreate the header files from the ideas? If so, I'm surprised it hasn't been done already, but I can only find the RSA files and a copy in gpkcs11.sf.net which seems to be the RSA files with the copyright header stripped. [...] - Does the RSA publicity clause conflict with the GPL used by Mozilla? Yes. For a similar answer from [EMAIL PROTECTED], see http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-mailutils/2002-09/msg00016.html It's a shame that RSA are using the ad clause. Not even UCB still does. I think it has caused problems within the GnuPG community before. - Is Mozilla using an illegal licence? No. It may be contradictory in that no-one can satisfy it, so no-one can redistribute the NSS under the GPL, but it is not illegal. - Should Debian stop distributing Mozilla? I don't know. I guess Mozilla lawyers already thought about the problem. Anybody knows if they consider the RSA publicity clause in conflict with GPL? Not me. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
